MARVIN MILES,
No. 98-35610Plaintiff-Appellant,
D.C. No. CV-97-01190-Rv. AMERICAN SEAFOODS COMPANY,
ORDER AND OPINIONDefendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Courtfor the Western District of WashingtonBarbara J. Rothstein, Chief Judge, PresidingArgued and SubmittedSeptember 13, 1999--Seattle, WashingtonMemorandum Filed October 14, 1999Order Filed December 13, 1999Before: Alfred T. Goodwin and Mary M. Schroeder,Circuit Judges, and William W Schwarzer,*Senior District Judge.Opinion by Judge Schwarzer_________________________________________________________________*The Honorable William W Schwarzer, Senior
United States DistrictJudge for the Northern District of California,
sitting by designation.
14521

Marvin Miles appeals from the district court's
grant ofsummary judgment in favor of defendant American
SeafoodsCompany. Miles is a seaman seeking maintenance
and cure asa result of a right shoulder injury he sustained
on defendant'svessel in 1997.

In 1995, Miles had injured his right shoulder
while workingaboard another of defendant's vessels, the
AMERICANCHAMPION. In 1996, Miles executed a valid
settlementagreement releasing American Seafoods from

each and every
right or claim which I now have, or may hereafter
have, because of any matter or thing which happened
before the signing of this paper; including
every claim for damages, maintenance, wages, cure,
transportation, reimbursement, or expense .
. . whether or not now in existence or known to me
or whether it develops or becomes known to me
in the future, which in any way arises out of or
is connected with my employment on the SS "American
Champion".

In May 1996, Miles was released by his physician
to returnto work without restrictions. He entered
into a new employ-ment contract with defendant, and worked
without incidentfor one season. In May of 1997, he entered
into yet anothercontract with defendant to work on the AMERICANDYNASTY. His work aboard that vessel included
the rapid,repetitive transfer of fish from a conveyer
belt to a filetingmachine. In the course of that work, Miles'
right shoulderpopped. Sharp pain set in, forcing him to
cease work andreturn to shore for medical treatment. Miles
seeks mainte-nance and cure for this injury.

14524

The district court denied maintenance and
cure because itfound a dispute of fact whether the 1997
injury was a newinjury or was connected with the earlier
shoulder injury. Itthen granted summary judgment because "there
is no way thatplaintiff will be able to carry his burden
of proof that this isa new injury."

[1] At oral argument, counsel for defendant
properly con-ceded that because it had pled the release
as an affirmativedefense, the burden of proving that it precluded
liability forthe 1997 injury rested on defendant. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c).Miles released defendant of "every claim
which I . . . mayhereafter have, because of any . . . thing
which happenedbefore the signing of this paper; including
every claim . . .which in any way arises out of or is connected
with myemployment on the SS `American Champion.'
" The questionis whether that release covers the 1997 injury.

[2] The claim Miles asserts here is "because
of" somethingthat "happened" after the signing of the
release and arose outof his employment on the AMERICAN DYNASTY.
Defen-dant does not dispute that something new
happened in 1997but argues that it resulted in a "re-injury
of his 1995 rightshoulder injury." But the release does not
protect defendantfrom liability for a future injury of the
same part of Miles'body caused by a subsequent event. Suppose
Miles had frac-tured his arm, signed the release, and on
a later voyage frac-tured that same arm; surely no one would
argue that therelease on account of the first fracture
discharges liability forfuture identical fractures.

[3] However, defendant does not even contend--much
lessoffer proof--that the injury claimed in 1997
is the "same"injury, i.e., that he is trying to recover
compensation for whathe has previously been compensated for. Defendant
simplyargues that the two injuries are "extremely
similar" and thatthe 1997 injury is the "same type of right
shoulder injury" andan "exacerbation" of the 1995 injury. Under
the terms of the

14525

release, that argument is irrelevant. A reasonable
reading ofthe release would protect defendant against
a claim for com-plications from or recurrence of the injury
he suffered in1995. Cf. Morta v. Korea Ins. Corp., 840
F.2d 1452 (9th Cir.1988) (auto accident release properly barred
claim for dam-ages resulting from brain clot attributable
to accident butmanifesting itself after execution of release).
It does not pro-tect against a claim arising out of a new
trauma from sortingfish on the AMERICAN DYNASTY resulting in
anotherinjury to the same shoulder, even if that
injury aggravates anearlier injury.

[4] Because the interpretation of the release
is a question oflaw, we may decide that question on this
appeal. See id. at1460. We find no ambiguity but even if there
were one, wemust decide it against the drafter. See Herrington
v. Countyof Sonoma, 12 F.3d 901, 907 (9th Cir. 1993).
Moreover,"[a]dmiralty courts have been liberal in
interpreting [the dutyof shipowners to provide maintenance and
cure]`for the bene-fit and protection of seamen who are its
wards.' . .. [T]heshipowner's liability for maintenance and
cure [is] among `themost pervasive' of all and [is] not to be
defeated by restrictivedistinctions nor `narrowly confined.' When
there are ambigui-ties or doubts, they are resolved in favor
of the seaman."Vaughan v. Atkinson, 369 U.S. 527, 531-32
(1962) (citationsomitted).

The judgment is reversed and the matter remanded
withdirections to enter judgment for plaintiff
on the maintenanceand cure claim.